Mitt Romney, anti-Calvinist?

I’m hardly a trained theologian, but I grew up attending a nondenominational Bible church in South Jersey that was riven by a theological issue that might seem to non-Christians insanely obscure.

At the risk of oversimplifying: Do human beings initiate the process of salvation, or “regeneration,” by asking for forgiveness and embracing the Christian faith, or do we need God to call on us first? When the pastors of my childhood church began preaching the latter—the Reformed theology taught by John Calvin—many people left in protest.

I don’t call myself a Calvinist today, but suffice it to say I’m attuned to this kind of thing. My ears perked up, therefore, when Mitt Romney said the following in his commencement speech at Liberty University (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

What we have, what we wish we had—ambitions fulfilled, ambitions disappointed … investments won, investments lost … elections won, elections lost—these things may occupy our attention, but they do not define us. And each of them is subject to the vagaries and serendipities of life. Our relationship with our Maker, however, depends on none of this. It is entirely in our control, for He is always at the door, and knocks for us. Our worldly successes cannot be guaranteed, but our ability to achieve spiritual success is entirely up to us, thanks to the grace of God.

This is not pabulum. There is a substantive theological claim here. Contemporary Calvinists believe something like the opposite: “Our relationship with our Maker” is entirely out of our control; “spiritual success” — whatever that is — is entirely up to God.

Liberty University’s founder, the late Jerry Falwell, was apparently closer to Romney’s view on this than to Calvinists. Here is Falwell in 2007, describing the idea that Jesus died only for “the elect”—that is, those whom God chooses to save by his grace—as “heresy.”

For Reformed reaction to Falwell’s remarks at the time, see here and here.

Is this an issue that’s going to swing the presidential election one way or the other? Of course not. What do Mormons believe about this? I honestly have no idea. But I know and respect a lot of people who care deeply about these issues. At the very least, it’s worth noting. I’d love to hear what folks like Joe Carter over at First Things has to say about it.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 8 comments

8 Responses to Mitt Romney, anti-Calvinist?

Well, some cursory research into Mormonism seems to indicate their beliefs aren’t easy to fit in that continuum. Apparently they belief in both an unconditional salvation (everyone is saved in living after death through Christ’s atoning death on the cross, by pure grace. This means life after death) and a conditional one. (To be exalted, to become like God after. I’m not sure what happens to people who are unconditionally saved yet not spiritually saved.)

If he means spiritual walk in the context of spiritual salvation, yeah it seems very Arminian. You do all the work, there is no real Holy Spirit that sanctifies you or keeps you. I speak very much under correction, and would welcome some Mormon defense or input on this. But you can’t judge Mormon theology by orthodox Christian standards. They use the same terminology but have often radically different beliefs and meanings of such.

My understanding is that Mormon theology puts a heavy emphasis on free will. For example, Adam and Eve’s eating the fruit in the garden is seen as a good thing because it gave them the choice to sin or not. I believe they also teach that Christ saves all, not just an elect few. I’m not surprised that Romney is anti-Calvinist about these things, but I agree that in certain circles these views would be highly controversial.

Calvinist commenter here, I think the best way to talk about it is to avoid the polarized language used to describe Calvinism here as well as by Romney – from the opposite side of the spectrum – in his speech. (Then again, one doesn’t go to Liberty University in search of theological acumen.)

One of the old English preacher Charles Spurgeon’s best quotes is his response to questions about reconciling divine sovereignty and personal responsibility: “I don’t reconcile friends.” I’m a pretty firm Calvinist, I’d even affirm the idea of definite atonement or limited atonement, which is that Christ died for the elect. That said, I still see plenty of reason in Scripture to affirm the idea that human beings are responsible moral agents. So I affirm both.

That said, Romney’s remarks within the larger context of his political platform do suggest that Romney is more of a pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps American than a Christian. Put another way, his Christianity – well, Mormonism which isn’t Christianity – occasionally speaks into his identity as an American, but his American identity seems to be primary.

“At the risk of oversimplifying: Do human beings initiate the process of salvation, or “regeneration,” by asking for forgiveness and embracing the Christian faith, or do we need God to call on us first?”

The idea that you describe in the first clause is properly called Pelagianism. In classical Christianity where there is a heavy emphasis on synergism and which today treats Calvinism as a deep distortion of the Faith, Pelagianism is still heresy.